THE NIC SUCKS!

(Note: For this rant 'The NIC' is taken to be NSI/Registrar.)
What do you get when you mail the nic change requests for 10 different domains, all containing the EXACT SAME data to change?
"They screw it up 10 different ways?"
Not quite, you get _5_ different instances of the data in the final result.
(IE, requesting Nameservers A B C D E F G for each of 10 domains, you get back some having A and B only, some Having A-E, some having A-F and one having A-D.)
"wow, that takes... talent."
You're telling me.
"So far, I've had good luck with register.com. anyone still dealing with NetSol deserves what they get. ;)"
Unfortunately, changing right now is not an option. As well, you have the same database underlying all of it, and who do you think controls that?
Oh, and do you know about the database? That's what started all of this!
The limit on how many nameservers you can have in a domain is a function of how much data can be returned in a single UDP packet. (I'm told that number is typically 10-12 hosts. Please correct me if it isn't) The NIC could have just used this as their limit. That would have made sense. Hell, I'll even grant them that they might want to put in a hard limit so as to always be beneath the actual technical limit so everyone gets treated equally...and put in a hard limit they did. But did they base this limit on anything related to the technology underlying the issue, say "9 hosts"?
No. Of course they didn't. They decided to limit you based on the NIC HANDLE that THEY Automatically assign to your nameserver.
If you want to name your servers "nameserver.foo.com", "nameserver2.foo.com", "nameserver3.foo.com" and "nameserver4.foo.com", you're probably Out of luck. While I don't have access to the actual alogritihms used, I know that what you get assigned is along the lines of <hostname><sequence number>-hst - ie, you'll get something like "nameserver15-hst" while if you want your namservers named something like "ya.foo.com", you'll get "ya8-hst"
In itself, this isn't so bad, but THEN they go an limit you NOT on the number of records, but on the NUMBER OF CHARACTERS IN YOUR HANDLE. And what's that limit? 32 characters (truncating the -hst) BUT adding in a <space>
So if you decided on the nice readable "nameserver.foo.com" and got back the nice readable "nameserver15-hst", that's 13 characters right there. Multiply by 3 and that's 39. Which is more than you can have.
"So they'll send you an error on that when you try to register too many, right?"
Don't make me laugh! Not only does it silently fail and only register (up to) as many hosts as will fit in the database field, it will also (and I think this is the most evil part of all!) TRUNCATE THE COPY OF YOUR ORIGINAL MAIL it sends back in its confirmation of your request!
For example: You submit a form that looks like
Secondary Name Server(s)
8a. Secondary Server Hostname.......: yb.FOO.COM
8b. Secondary Server Netaddress.....: 284.232.232.36
8a. Secondary Server Hostname..: yc.FOO.COM
8b. Secondary Server Netaddress: 287.246.46.48
8a. Secondary Server Hostname..: yd.FOO.COM
8b. Secondary Server Netaddress: 287.387.332.37
8a. Secondary Server Hostname..: ye.FOO.COM
8b. Secondary Server Netaddress: 372.235.368.38
8a. Secondary Server Hostname..: yf.FOO.COM
8b. Secondary Server Netaddress: 236.32.338.34
8a. Secondary Server Hostname..: yg.FOO.COM
8b. Secondary Server Netaddress: 284.378.338.35
8a. Secondary Server Hostname..: yh.FOO.COM
8b. Secondary Server Netaddress: 328.33.63.225

END OF AGREEMENT

For instructions, please refer to:
"http://www.networksolutions.com/help/inst-mod.html"
(Yes, the IP numbers are bad and I don't have anything to do with foo.com.)
and you get back something that looks like:
>Secondary Name Server(s)                                                       
>8a. Secondary Server Hostname.......: yb.FOO.COM
>8b. Secondary Server Netaddress.....: 284.232.232.36
>
>
>END OF AGREEMENT
>
>
>For instructions, please refer to:                                            
>"http://www.networksolutions.com/help/inst-mod.html"
Yes, you got that right. They cut 12 lines out of the MIDDLE but they LEAVE BEHIND the boilerplate that makes it look like that's exactly what you TOLD THEM TO DO in the first place.
This is so evil, it should be illegal.
Luckily, I'll give you a hint: 2nd level support at NSI can be reached by calling them more or less directly at 703-925-6950.
Unfortuanately, if you have a problem they can't handle - say that there's some policy in your way, you can't manage to talk to ANYONE ELSE above them.
What I was told is that the 3rd level support folks ONLY TALK TO THE OTHER support folks by email and that they will NOT answer phones. If you manage to get a phone number, feel free to let me know and I'll post it here.

UPDATE! I was trying to upgrade a domain from 5 name servers to 8 nameservers, expecting all of the same failures I've already had. This time it was DIFFERENT, though. Did they truncate? No! Did they reject? NO! They sent back mail saying "We can't trust your authorization of this change, please do foo, bar and baz to confirm it's you."
So I did foo, bar and baz. Did it help? NO! It just black-holed. I called the number above and said "I'm trying to make a change. Here's the tracking number." and was told "You can only have 5 nameservers!" at which point I showed them a domain, registered through them that had 8.
I'm waiting for the call back from the supervisor now.Aug 3, 2000

Ok, so people are starting to sue NSI. Yay. In my opinion, they deserve it.
Take a look at
EyeOnDomain's class-action...if you read this in the next 5 days - before 12/19/00 - you can join in!
Dec. 14, 2000

I've recently been made aware that NSI is not the only suckful Registrar. This details some severe cluelessness from Register.Com.

Jewel Cases

Is it too much to ask to be able to find non-standard jewel cases???

So. There I was, cleaning up my CD collection, trying to replace all the cracked, damaged, drilled, cut, or hub-damaged jewel cases I had.

(No, this isn't going to be about "Why use jewel cases" - I LIKE jewel cases, especially compared to Digi-packs or various 'replacement' cd storage solutions. But that's for another time.)

So, anyway, there I was, and despite my general tendancies towards extreme retentiveness in retaining the original style of packaging, I was wanting to replace the 2/3's width cases on the 10 disc "Swing Time" set I got for $30 a while ago. What I wanted to put these discs into was either a 6 disc double-wide and 4 disc double-wide or in 2 5 disc doublewides.

(Some of my terminology: A normal jewel case is a single disc, single width, cd singles usually come in 2/3'ds width cases with J-cards, old-style 2 disc sets came in double-wides, and new-styles sets in 2 disc single-wides, of which I've seen at least 4 different designs. there are also 3, 4, 5 and 6 disc double-wide cases. I'll be using {number of discs}x{width of case} from here on out.

ANYWAY. So, I wanted to put these 10 discs in either a 6x2 and a 4x2 or in 2 5x2's. So I started to look for these. I knew they existed. I have Richard Thompson's Watching The Dark (I think that's the title) and the complete Etron Fou Louleblon in 3x2's and I have something in a 4x2 and Linux Power Tools comes in a 6x2!
But they were NOWHERE to be found. I asked at every record store (Used AND New) that I went into. I looked on the web. I asked friends. Nothing. Well...not QUITE nothing. I did finally find the Sony Duplication Services order numbers for 3-6x2's. But those pages are for people purchasing runs of discs that will be packaged in these cases right off the assembly line. They're NOT for 1-off retail sales.

And so I've continued to look. And I've continued to lose. And to get more frustrated and rant-ful. If you have any ideas, please let me know...I really want these cases.
11/98
Update 3: Interestingly, someone's started making 3x1's! They'd be Really Cool except that you can't put any sort of fullsize U or J card in them at all, leaving you the options of either a half-size 'L' card, or...something else hackish. They DO take booklets, though. Seen at
Planet Records, Cambridge MA - 8/14/2000
Update 2: I was also sent the following URL, which has what I'm looking for. They have a min. order that's a bit annoying, and it will thus take a bit of overcoming inertia for me to order, but hey...if anyone else around Boston wants something from them, let me know, and I'll be more motivated to split an order... A link to ccssinc.com 6/4/99

Update: Someone's pointed me at a source in Cambridge that I haven't had a chance to check out. I'm dubious, but hopeful.
(Ok, I went there - Planet Records in Harvard Square. They stock 3x2 and 4x2's, which is much better than most other places, but still doesn't get me the 5 and 6x2's I'm looking for, which I KNOW exist.
2/23/99
As well, the folks at CDROM.com suggested I talk to their duplicator, Nimbus, which I will do soon, though this isn't the answer I'm really looking for. These things should be available RETAIL, damn it!
12/31/98

Rant of my first year in Boston, 1998

Why does Langenscheidt hate Boston?

The Langenscheidt Publishing Group is the owner of most of the most well-known regional map companies in the US, including ADC (Mid-Atlantic), Hagstrom (Metro-NY), and Arrow (New England), as well as a few others. (I'm primarily writing about the companies whose maps I've used...:)

Unfortunately, their growing conglomerate status has meant bad news and a lack of competition for the consumers of their maps.

In the days of competition, there were Arrow and American maps in DC, ADC looked like it would eventually cover the whole east coast and Hagstrom (known in NYC as "The Holy Hagstrom") did Boston, too.

Now, not really surprisingly, but distressingly nontheless, LPG has decided that only one of their companies should do business in any region.

So why am I ranting? Because by doing this, they've made it so I'm driving around Boston with a piece of crap that serves to get me lost as often as it helps me find where I'm going.

How does this get me lost? Byt the simple fact that there's no easy way to deal when you're on the edge of a map. Say you want to go to somplace on the Boston/Quincy border. Where you want to go will be right on the margin of the map - you know - next to the street listing key. You can't get context from EITHER map. If you're trying to figure out what the best route is, you're stuck flipping 120 pages back and forth. If you want to know how far something is? You're also doomed. Every single map is in a different scale to make it fit on one or 2 pages.

What to do? That's easy.
Take a look at Thomas Bros. Maps or even Langenschidt's own ADC (formerly the Alexandria Drafting Company) - single scale book maps, layed out in a simple mosaic pattern...you know -
MAP1 - MAP2 - MAP3 - MAP4
MAP5 - MAP6 - MAP7 - MAP8
MAP9 -MAP10 -MAP11 -MAP12
and so on.

The thing that really pisses me off is that A) there WAS a Hagstrom Book map of the area that had all of the features that I want, but now LPC doesn't publish that map any more and B) LDC has shown that they know it's a good idea by publishing a mini book of the Boston area in the 'proper' format, and trumpting all of the advantages on the front cover. Unfortunately, they don't have these 'features' in their big books. Let's hope it comes soon.

RANT OF THE YEAR, 1997

If there is any sort of Deity in the heavens or Justice in the US, the complaint of Caldera against MacroSloth will go forward and they will WIN and Win will Lose. But that's aready the case, isn't it....anyway... Please. Pretty Please.

What timing! Just as I was getting ready to rant about something new in this space, the following comes across my desk:
Bad News for MicroSnot! Quick summary: A Federal judge has ruled that Caldera may now legally bring new allegations that Microsoft illegally created a technical tie of MS-DOS into Win95.
They claim that this action illegally shut out competing versions of DOS, such as Caldera's DR-DOS.
Unfortunately, I've lost the URL. CNN probably has it someplace...

Unfortunately, they settled. Caldera got money, which is good, but M$ didn't give up an API or anything else, which is bad. Ah Well.
02/10/00

RANT OF THE MONTH, JUNE 1996

What the HELL is it with counter.digits.com?
Why the hell are people so insistant on putting digits.com's counter on their pages? Despite the claims on
their page that the system running digits.com is a very StuDLy system that "employs specialized threaded servers which have been written for the task" and that "[t]he system consists of three separate servers which take care of HTTP requests, database manipulations, and real-time image generation. The servers are completely processor and network I/O bound and are able to handle at least 50 requests per second on a 60Mhz BSD/OS Pentium running BSD/OS while incurring no disk overhead," every single goddamned page that references them ALWAYS (or at least during the middle of the day) spends something like 45 seconds waiting for a response.
There are people out there who have the pointer on every one of their (otherwise fine and interesting) pages. To try to surf these pages is an excercise in frustration, as one gets stuck waiting for the response and the rest of the page just sits there until the digits.com request times out.
Yes. I realize that if I were to use NutScrape, or some other multi-threaded browser, I would be in a situation where the rest of the page would finish loading while the digits.com counter was timing out, but even with NoEscape, if the counter's graphic is at the top of the page, you still end up with a either really annoying redraw when it finally gets the image size or with the rest of the page not drawing until it knows what it's drawing for the counter.
What's the point? Why BOTHER?

End Rant


Back to my home page.
Last Changed: 11/06/02
Jailbait @ Apocalypse.Org
Jailbait @ lse.Org